Tomo "article": Succulent lamb on the rack?

[BlueMazza 0]

i can imagine rennie emailing liewell about the stokes ira story. hahahaha and i can imagine liewells response too!

 

Aye, 'Get it off the front page & get a negative Rangers story out'

[amms 0]

You don't think Lawwell will have this from journalists all the time?

 

Yeah, probably. I imagine it is fairly endemic at some level. I'm not sure that makes it okay though. The press shouldn't be as cosy as this suggests they are, with Whyte, Lawwell, Green or any single director. That muppet Spence on Radio Scotland is like Steven Thomson's personal spokesman, the press collude on stories, it's not a startling revelation but it's still an uncomfortable one.

[amms 0]

Tell you why I am minded to believe JT on this, amms.

 

JT never was, until he signed on the dotted line, a friend of Rangers. Neither was he an enemy to us (as some round these parts will have you believe). Neither was he a friend of Celtic. In journalistic terms he favoured nobody and was afraid of nobody.

 

Sometimes his attacks on people on Sportsound were 18 certificate - he took no prisoners but he was almost always fair. He had that pugnacious combative streak that good journalists have to have.

 

JT was the best sports journalist in Scotland (aye, ok, where's the competition?) by a country mile - and the mhedia know it.

They know that if he comes for them, he'll take a few of them out.

 

So what's the standard plan when you need to weaken the enemy? You discredit their PR machine. They will be - nay, have begun - launching pre-emptive strikes on JT. These will come from different sources at different times and at different intensities. The object is to make him fight on numerous fronts while the opposition strike and retreat. They'll want to discredit him and wear him down.

 

Green has said that Rangers can't fight a war on all fronts against the media and that they will only retaliate when provoked.

 

This is that provocation - and the response should be such that the mhedia will think long and hard about having another go.

We can't fight everybody, so we should choose one of them and make an example. Pour les autres.

 

You might well be right. Traynor doesnâ??t deny it of course just offers an explanation as way of mitigation. Itâ??s this explanation that troubles me though. Why send him the whole article, why not just the salient â??factsâ?? he wanted Whyte to confirm? How much of what we read, and see reported, is filtered through the prism of club owners first?

 

I accept Thomson and a few others have it in for Traynor, itâ??s childish and unprofessional, but thatâ??s not what really concerns me about this, Traynor is big enough to look after himself.

[Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0]

Seriously... what the frig is Thomsons problem? He probably had no interest in Rangers, Scottish Football and football in general during his stint as a reporter but all of a sudden this muppet makes Rangers his lifes meisterwork. What an odd little man

[BlueMazza 0]

Seriously... what the frig is Thomsons problem? He probably had no interest in Rangers' date=' Scottish Football and football in general during his stint as a reporter but all of a sudden this muppet makes Rangers his lifes meisterwork. What an odd little man[/quote']

 

Surely it lends to suggestions that someone has brought him up here/into this story for a purpose then? As you say, why else? The only answer is he is working to/for someone else's agenda.

[Max Rebo's Big Blue Nose 0]

Surely it lends to suggestions that someone has brought him up here/into this story for a purpose then? As you say, why else? The only answer is he is working to/for someone else's agenda.

 

There is problably some truth in this tbh but that just makes this clown even more pathetic than he already is. Maybe there is some mad mahnk behind the scenes at C4?

[Juancornetto 1]

There's a poisonous little clique in London media circles which is passionately Republican and therefore by default it seems, passionately anti-Rangers. Roy Greenslade (Professor of Journalism at City University, London) seems to be the epicentre of it, he is Mad Phil's former neighbour and mentor, he has a long established friendship with Alex Thomson and his name seems to crop up with frightening regularity whenever there is this kind of poisonous activity. How much deeper it runs, I don't know but one thing is for sure, they've got it bad for The Rangers.

[stewarty 1,876]

You might well be right. Traynor doesn’t deny it of course just offers an explanation as way of mitigation. It’s this explanation that troubles me though. Why send him the whole article, why not just the salient ‘facts’ he wanted Whyte to confirm? How much of what we read, and see reported, is filtered through the prism of club owners first?

 

I accept Thomson and a few others have it in for Traynor, it’s childish and unprofessional, but that’s not what really concerns me about this, Traynor is big enough to look after himself.

 

I think quite simply its a means that most all journalists use in order to get interviews and to use quotes obtained during the process. Tomo is screaming about journalistic ethics would know this fine well. But then, his previous piece on Orlit offered no right of reply to Rangers before publishing, so we can see right through any claims of journalistic integrity.

 

As for the man generally, he writes a foreword to a book he claims not to have read. For me, no further debate about journalistic integrity is necessary.

[amms 0]

I think quite simply its a means that most all journalists use in order to get interviews and to use quotes obtained during the process. Tomo is screaming about journalistic ethics would know this fine well. But then, his previous piece on Orlit offered no right of reply to Rangers before publishing, so we can see right through any claims of journalistic integrity.

 

As for the man generally, he writes a foreword to a book he claims not to have read. For me, no further debate about journalistic integrity is necessary.

 

I don't disagree with anything you've written, I'm just uncomfortable that it happens. I'm not fooled into thinking Thomson is some sort of virtuous crusader, but our dislike and distrust of him shouldn't blind us from the apparent fact that the press are often too cosy with club owners. That's not healthy or in our best interests.

[stewarty 1,876]

For sure. We shouldn't blindly accept what has been written by anyone, the club included.

 

In some respects, the most interesting aspect of the TOMOBLOG is where Tomo has sourced these emails and texts. He makes no mention of this.

 

Logically, it seems to be Whyte, or someone acting on Whyte's behalf. Either that or someone at the Daily Record who has pulled his IT records. Now why would they do that, I wonder?